Is "Pro-Choice" the right "choice" for a Christian to make? Why or why not?

[DrBubbaLove]

Likewise. It's Easter morning here and I'm about to go and take the dawn vigil, so I might leave it there for now (though more could be said, and perhaps another time we might explore further) but I have appreciated the conversation.

Peace be with you.

 

[tonnerkiller]

See the quote box below

You rely on your understanding of the strong numbers. I studied Hebrew. Little hint: Yeled means children generally (including unborn), you don't want that word,you want the word before.

Shekol has the basic meaning of being bereaved, miscarriage only being one possibility of many. Do you speak any language besides English?

 

[redleghunter]

You rely on your understanding of the strong numbers. I studied Hebrew. Little hint: Yeled means children generally (including unborn), you don't want that word,you want the word before.

Shekol has the basic meaning of being bereaved, miscarriage only being one possibility of many. Do you speak any language besides English?

Post up your lexicon results.

Given what you posted it just strengthens the argument I presented.

 

[SkyWriting]

It sounds like you don't believe anything the bible says. If the bible is so fallible in your eyes because it was "strictly from the sinful human point of view", then what is your basis for the very existence of God, Jesus' sacrifice for us, and His will in our lives?

Read my link "Answered Prayer" just below.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your view is the TaNaKh (OT) and B'rit Chadashah (NT) are not Holy Spirit inspired writings?

My idea of "inspired" is much closer the the definition of "inspired."

 

[SkyWriting]

Not following here.

The unborn hold no superior stand over any other life
on this planet. You might think of them as Stem Cells
with the potential to fix the worlds problems, but that
idea just comes from good parenting. It's not scriptural.

 

[SkyWriting]

Those in nursing homes may be the child's parent
(the father may be in his 90's)
(the mother may be in her 60's)
or any child already born may be the parent,
(The mother may be from 6 - 12 in age)
or a sibling.
(The mother may be the sister of the fetus)
(Or the brother of the fetus may be the father of it)

Outsiders have no say in reproduction matters.

 

[SkyWriting]

Many wonder when someone is willing to destroy the weakest and most fragile human existence and justify doing so by dehumanizing that life, how much harder would be for a culture where that was accepted as OK to apply the same reasoning on development disabled lives or some other group of people.

So the disable should be allowed to have babies unmonitored?
With disabled group homes filling with children of the developmentally disabled.
Or do we consider all the circumstances.

 

[SkyWriting]

pesky Occam razor

Occam's razor is not useful for analysis per Occam.
It was proposed for the design of experiments pointing
out that simple analysis methods would have fewer
variables and be mathematically less prone to error.

It is not to be used to analyze an existing situation
and suggest that the simple explanation is "better".

Occam's razor is not pesky, it's misapplied where it
has no value.

 

[redleghunter]

The unborn hold no superior stand over any other life
on this planet. You might think of them as Stem Cells
with the potential to fix the worlds problems, but that
idea just comes from good parenting. It's not scriptural.

What is good parenting?

 

[SkyWriting]

What is good parenting?

An idea that comes from good parenting, I guess.

 

[tonnerkiller]

Given what you posted it just strengthens the argument I presented.

No it doesn't. Yeled means children, or fruit of the body, or offspring. The term itself does leave it open whether alive or not. And as I said, you have to look at the word before...

As for shekol, it means bereaved, no matter whether you are bereaved of something dead or alive.

Post up your lexicon results.

Problem is, I have almost all my books in boxes as I have no space to unbox them here in this appartment. I might move soon though.

You didn't answer my question: Do you speak any other language than English?

Blessed Easter

 

[redleghunter]

No it doesn't. Yeled means children, or fruit of the body, or offspring. The term itself does leave it open whether alive or not. And as I said, you have to look at the word before...

As for shekol, it means bereaved, no matter whether you are bereaved of something dead or alive.


Problem is, I have almost all my books in boxes as I have no space to unbox them here in this appartment. I might move soon though.

You didn't answer my question: Do you speak any other language than English?

Blessed Easter

You should be able to substantiate your claim without your personal books. Pick a lexicon.

Otherwise the only conclusion for Exodus 21 is yeled which is an alive child which means giving birth prematurely. If the child survives no punishment but if there is damage or injury or death eye for eye, burn for burn etc.

I didn't answer your language question given you asserted you knew Hebrew. I don't know that you do, nor if I told you I was fluent in three other languages would I expect you to believe me.

Guess I'll see you on the French boards.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Occam's razor is not useful for analysis per Occam.
It was proposed for the design of experiments pointing
out that simple analysis methods would have fewer
variables and be mathematically less prone to error.

It is not to be used to analyze an existing situation
and suggest that the simple explanation is "better".

Occam's razor is not pesky, it's misapplied where it
has no value.

I was simply using it as it was presented here first to suggest what was simpler than my idea of an afterlife should be accepted because the traditional view of human souls was too complex.
It was said that view was more complex than a timewarps with dead people coming back and forth from the future or the idea that God can and will make multiple me's with the final me being Judged for the life the first me led. So the idea was as I understood it, the idea of a real afterlife because our souls transcend death is rejected because it is not the simplest answer. I do not see timewarps or God copying everyone as simple answers, much less making a case for a real afterlife of our current existence.
Forgive my copying someone else's method of using the razor if that was done in error.

 

[SolomonVII]

lol, the multiverse with infinite worlds bubbling off from the singularity, and co-existing completely separate from each other is just not a simple answer to the problem of the infinite improbabilities of the fine tuning of our universe, is it?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

So the disable should be allowed to have babies unmonitored?
With disabled group homes filling with children of the developmentally disabled.
Or do we consider all the circumstances.

I find it helpful when attempting to insert myself in a conversation to at least pay attention to the point being discussed rather than picking out a single quote and attempting to make it about something else.
The issue was that one can tell a lot about a society by the way it treats the weakest and most helpless among us. If it treats them poorly then other groups become threatened.
My suggestion was we should treat all persons with the dignity and honor their humanity demands. If we did that for the weakest and most fragile persons - hard to imagine one less so than a zygote - then everyone else would be safe as well.

Turning that discussion into my supposed suggestion there are no other circumstances is not just a rude way to jump into an ongoing conversation, but it changes the whole topic of those exchanges.

But since the false claim was made I made a suggestion, which I did not, I will play along. Of course there are always other circumstances in life to consider. How silly to imagine our valuation of the human life presented as a zygote should be subjective to the whim of external circumstances. If an accident or rape or whatever tragedy results in a pregnancy, am not clear how we can or should use those circumstances to simply devalue something below a point we would otherwise protect that life.

No life belongs to us to have a say in whether it lives or dies. To say otherwise is to put oneself in God's place. And no, that does not rule out self defense, defending others or a doctor taking measures to save the life of a mother knowing those measures will likely cost her child's life, which if conscious should be the type of choice we support. And no saving a mother's life does not include allowing the idea that a another life may be inconvenient at the moment so judged not worthy of living.

 

[SPF]

I have the same amount of concern as you for the child outside the womb
which supposedly you do care for, but you rarely mention.

Skywriting, what of the child inside the womb? It would be actually be gracious to say that you "rarely" mention the child inside the womb when you have made contributions on this thread. Virtually never is probably more accurate.

And how we understand the value and quality of the life inside the womb is what is going to be the determining factor in understanding the morality of abortion.

So again, for clarification sake. Do you think you could drop the political facade and actually have a meaningful conversation? I have a simple question for you -

Do you believe that the unborn child inside a mother's womb possesses the same moral worth and value as the newborn child that resides outside the womb?

I would assert that the morality of abortion stands or falls with how we answer the above question. If the answer is yes, that the child inside the womb is just as much made in the image of God as you are, then all the verses you've supplied about the "Golden Rule" need to be applied to the child in the womb.

SkyWriting, I have a hunch that you think the answer is no. Otherwise, everything you've said would certainly be one big contradiction. My hunch I think is further evidenced by the fact that you flat out said you believe morality to be subjective. I think both your positions fall way outside the Biblical narrative on the subject. Would you care to clarify?

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you believe that the unborn child inside a mother's womb possesses the same moral worth and value as the newborn child that resides outside the womb?

Yes it does.
I've felt the aborted baby's death as deeply
as the stillborn one and any miscarriage
and the pregnant 9 year old's rape by her father.
Why the obsession to control the lives of other
people? Something in your past?

 

[SkyWriting]

I was simply using it as it was presented here first to suggest what was simpler than my idea of an afterlife should be accepted because the traditional view of human souls was too complex.

Nothing in the real world is too simple or too complex. They just are.

 

[SkyWriting]

My hunch I think is further evidenced by the fact that you flat out said you believe morality to be subjective. I think both your positions fall way outside the Biblical narrative on the subject. Would you care to clarify?

Morality is by definition subjective. So I don't need to defend that point.
The stand on morality from scripture is 100% subjective.
I discovered that, then put in in my signature file to back up my discovery:
---> Mathew 7: 12 (Love Wins)

I'd be happy to elaborate, again.